click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130224
20130224
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
's a potential third case that has yet to be scheduled. texas versus u.s. or some call it texas versus holder. it is whether the district ruled the plan violated section five of the voting act. joining my panel is barbara, president and executive director of lawyers. a group representing individuals in these cases. >> good to see you. >> it's a pleasure to be here. >> we have been talking about shelby, but talk about the arizona case. >> the arizona case is fascinating. many people remember in 1993, congress passed the motor voter act for the national voter registration act. part of the purpose of that act is to make sure that for federal elections there would be a uniform registration process. it delegated authority to the commission to set up a registration form, which it did. unfortunately, in 2004, arizona passed a law that added its own requirements requiring proof of citizenship in addition and above to those from the federal form. they thought that wasn't enough. they wanted more. and we, of course, objected on behalf of our clients because this placed a special burden on people in ari
good job in controlling healthcare spendingyet more sequester grief. >> the u.s. travel association and congressional staff aids concur that with the budget sequester, one hour will be added to security wait at the nation's biggest and busiest airports. and after clearing the security lines, they will probably wait even longer because of cuts in federal aviation staff, meaning a cut-back in air traffic controllers. connecting passengers, beware. >> question. this is four, susan. concentrate on it. what makes this travel torment unlikely to come to pass? >> first of all, it's -- it doesn't have to come to pass. the tsa can cut money where it wants. it's a question of whether, as i said before, the president wants to use this to pressure the republicans by putting as much pain as possible on the public, therefore the public gets upset, but that's only going to work for so long for the public is going to figure out this is a political tactic and it could really back fair on the administration. i think they're keenly aware of that, and that's part of the reason why they might be a littl
into u.s. corporations hundreds of times and stealing secrets. so if those companies can't protect themselves, how can you? and a cyber security analyst cbo connected to the case, he joins us now, hi, morgan. >> hi, alisyn. >> alisyn: that's a great question. obviously, the chinese are using, i assume, some sort of sophisticated technology to hack into the department of defense or to try to. and various corporations, computer systems, but can we assume that lower level criminals are taking a page from them? >> well, actually, alisyn, let's back up. they're actually not using sophisticated systems, what they're using curiosity, social engineering. the big s method of intrusion and the way that they're compromising system is getting you to click on an attachment on an e-mail you think you have a personal interest in. that's where the foot hold starts because the code to infect your computer comes out of that pdf or that document file or attachment. >> alisyn: good to know. talk about we, even us who are not technically sophisticated the at all can protect ourselves. >> yes he. >> ali
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)